How do you know? Do you have a crystal ball to see what would have happened if the US military would have just stayed home? — frank

The question is, do you use the DOJ/FBI/CIA or do you invade and occupy a country? In fact, even the Reagan/Clinton answer of punitive strikes into the country...and then leave the country alone seemed to have out of the question.

@frank, the truth is that the Domino Theory, the reason for the US to fight in Vietnam, was far more logical and clear headed (and in the end wrong) than the scaremongering reasons we got for the War on Terror. Which goes on even this day.

You think it's a great idea to invade a large country because of the actions of few individuals that weren't from that country, had no links to the officials of that country and that the majority (if anyone) hadn't even visited, but then had the financier of the attacks living in? Yes, the Afghan government dared to ask proof just why would they give OBL to the US. Such thing was non-negotiable.

The only reason was that the first Twin Towers bombing failed and hence it could be dealt as a police matter (as terrorist attacks usually dealt with). But the second one was a great success and hence the US politicians had to bomb somewhere. The American people craved for revenge and a police investigation would have seemed as if the politicians would not care. Hence war was the best solution for politicians.

Think about it for a while.

If you look at both the terrorist attacks that have happened or have been prevented, NO have had a link to Afghanistan. The Islamic State was what Al Qaeda in Iraq morphed into, and Al Qaeda in Iraq was not in control of the tiny cabal that Osama bin Laden had. It was a franchised movement. And the terrorists were usually estranged people likely with mental problems that could pick up from the net all the IS regalia needed to make them part of the IS.

But this is a topic for a different thread...

I believe that the Taliban wanted the US to come after them, that it was part of the plan, which would be why they did not surrender Osama Ben Laden. — Olivier5

I don't think that the Taliban wanted the US to come after them. I think Al Qaeda wanted for the US to come after them.

You may be right that a police operation would have been appropriate and might have worked better in the end. But IMO, you cannot compare 9/11 with prior terrorist attacks. Close to 3000 people burnt alive in downtown Manhattan. — Olivier5

And you hit the nail here. 3 000 killed and images of people leaping into their death isn't something that a politician can respond with an police investigation, especially if you have the armed forces of a Superpower. It's a slam dunk response to stay in power in a democracy. Only a Houdini of a politician could have gone this way and be successful.

Yet as we know (from Iraq and the War on Terror), the neocons wanted to use and did use this opportunity in their delirious idea that the US ought to try to gain hold of the Middle East before China grows too much (or something).

And then there is the question just how this war was managed and fought.

Again interesting topic, but for a different thread... like the late War on Terror thread.

Here's an surprisingly good take on the tactical nuclear weapons -question:



Discusses also their potential use in Ukraine war.

The last thing I would want is to be taken seriously by people who take seriously a criminal's excuses for his crimes. — Olivier5

, was the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan necessary?
— ssu

It was legit I think, — Olivier5

:chin:

But this is a topic for a different thread... — ssu

I don't think either of us cares to discuss it further, though

It was argued earlier in the thread that the US and the UK should stay out of such efforts. (You?) — jorndoe

That was suggested by Olivier, and I stated that it may very well be correct.

Maybe talks could be held under the auspices of the EU? — jorndoe

Whatever works. Negotiations should be supported as strongly as we’re supporting Ukraine with weapons and training.

No, clearly we don't agree. — Tzeentch

So what exactly do you disagree with?

And then there is the question just how this war was managed and fought. — ssu

Yes, very poorly.

Yet a fundamental difference with Iraq in my view, and respective to the argument I was making on precedent-setting, is that the war in Afghanistan was sanctioned by the Security Council.

So what exactly do you disagree with? — Olivier5

Your classification of a decades old, complex geopolitical situation as "a simple landgrab", obviously.

That is a good observation.

You're right. It was to denazify a country run by a Jew. That makes much more sense.

It looks like Russia is preparing information conditions for a nuclear attack in Ukraine - either with a dirty bomb (as they frame it) or a tactical nuke. At least that is what they want the world to think. They are climbing that escalation ladder.

This in addition to a likely destruction of the Kakhovka dam that would dump water from one of the largest reservoirs in Europe onto Kherson and other nearby settlements (presumably, after they vacate them).

In both cases this would be a false flag operation designed to fool no one who doesn't want to be fooled. This has become their signature move.

Personally, I'm talking of the invasion of Ukraine. What are you talking about?

No. I never said the US or NATO should be blamed for the war. Putin is to blame for the war. Why? Because it was his decision to invade Ukraine. I think it’s on par with the US invasion of Iraq. — Mikie

* I’m not blaming the US or NATO. — Mikie

I didn’t mean that you were blaming this war only on US/NATO. But as your line of reasoning goes (“do you think Putin would have annexed Crimea and/or invaded Ukraine had the US not (1) pushed for NATO membership, (2) supplied weapons, and (3) conducted military training?”), US/NATO expansion and meddling in Ukraine provoked Putin’s “special operation”, and therefore “US/NATO is to be blamed for the beginning of the war” where “beginning of the war” is Putin launching his “special operation”.
Indeed, that’s the kind of premise that Mearsheimer holds (along with his type of geopolitical realism) to support his controversial claim : “Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault”.
And if you are not claiming that what is your point in asking me that question?

the Russian concerns for NATO enlargement precede Putin and have been taken seriously — neomac

This is an assertion. Where’s the evidence? Pushing for NATO membership (up to and including the 2021 NATO summit), supplying weapons, conducting military drills, providing extensive training, etc., all why Russia was repeatedly calling it a red line (acknowledged by allies, experts, and our CIA as threatening and provocative) — is all that taking it seriously? — Mikie

“Taking seriously” means different things for different geopolitical actors depending on their strategy: for Russia it meant that the West should provide security assurance and of course “pushing for NATO membership (up to and including the 2021 NATO summit), supplying weapons, conducting military drills, providing extensive training, etc.,” are the opposite of security assurance for Putin. For Germany it meant boycott any attempt to have Ukraine joining NATO (which is in line with Putin’s security assurance). For East-European countries (including Ukraine) it meant “pushing for NATO membership (up to and including the 2021 NATO summit), supplying weapons, conducting military drills, providing extensive training, etc.,” because they needed security assurance from the US against the Russian revanchist threat!
Yet one can argue that Russian’s threats have been addressed the way Russia preferred to some extent by the West, proof of that is not only prominent Western allies' reluctance to welcome Ukraine candidature for NATO membership but also the many ways in which the US administrations avoided sending “lethal weapons” to Ukraine (https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/obama-trump-biden-ukraine-military-aid-1.6371378). The irony in this is that, as far as I’ve understood, the first aid package including lethal weapons that was actually released for Ukraine came from Putin’s old sport Donald Trump after the Trump–Ukraine scandal came out (where the Trump–Ukraine scandal consisted roughly in Trump pressuring Ukraine to compromise Biden in exchange for lethal weapons!).
What I find particularly misleading in your claim is your “acknowledged by allies, experts, and our CIA as threatening and provocative” because the understatement is that since allies and some experts were against threatening and provoking Russia by “pushing for NATO membership (up to and including the 2021 NATO summit), supplying weapons, conducting military drills, providing extensive training, etc.,” then those moves were illegitimate. But that’s a biased view, indeed one could as easily claim that other allies, other experts and other pentagon representatives were “pushing for NATO membership (up to and including the 2021 NATO summit), supplying weapons, conducting military drills, providing extensive training, etc.,” with the intent not to provoke but to deter Russia!
In other words, we are facing here a security dilemma: while we can argue that NATO had no malign intentions against Russia (just legitimate security concerns) as plausibly as we can argue that Russia had no malign intentions against the West (just legitimate security concerns), it may certainly be the case the case that each side reads hostile intentions into the other’s actions, probably due to deep-rooted/historical mistrust! That’s why it’s a hopeless exercise to take any side to admit having been the first one to start the escalation.

How would that scenario play out? Would we therefore EXCUSE the US for invading Canada? Of course not. But it shouldn’t come as a shock. Nor should we invent stories about how the US President’s “real” motive is to conquer all of the Western Hemisphere. — Mikie

Again this example seems inspired by Mearsheimer’s article “Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault” [2]. The problem is that there Mearsheimer was just talking about threat perception and intolerance signaling between state powers, and this was meant to prove the concept of “legitimate security concerns” (as opposed to imperialistic ambitions) in the case of Russia. No great power tolerates threats at their doorstep, fine hence my concession earlier (when I said I don’t deny “the fact that Putin’s concerns bear some strategic plausibility (having US/NATO so close to the Russian borders was too risky, even if NATO is a self-proclaimed defensive alliance)”). However there are 2 problems in the way you rendered Mearsheimer’s example: 1. I find your rhetorical question (“Would we therefore EXCUSE the US for invading Canada? Of course not”) controversial. If state A threatens state B in its proximity or state A invades state B, I could react differently depending on which state is democratic or authoritarian, because I prefer democracy over authoritarian regimes. 2. I find the reference to “President’s ‘real’ motive” highly misleading in the case of Putin for the following reasons: A) Putin’s ambition to challenge the Western world order is declared and perfectly in line with Russian revanchism (so Putin is not simply talking of having a buffer state, and the so far annexed territories aren’t a buffer state anyways!), B) Putin’s military-economically-ideologically projection outside Russian borders in Asia, Middle East, Africa, Europe, Mediterranean, Baltic and Artic proves his ambition to expand the Russian sphere of influence on a global scale C) Putin’s real motives pre-existed him (revanchist nationalist ambitions aren’t an invention of Putin) and might last after him (even if Putin is deposed, whoever will replace him can end up being like him, strive to achieve what Putin couldn’t), and be inspiration for others (challenging the West is a study case for other potential Western challengers like China and Iran). So the geopolitical relevance of his actions and claims go beyond his personal motivations.

I wouldn’t have predicted an exact date, of course, but things had escalated in 2021 after Biden took over. The Biden administration made it quite clear what its intentions were. So from the statements by NATO in June of 2021, to the joint statement by the White House on September 1st, to statements made by Blinken in December ‘21 and January ‘22 — yes, there was a shift. It wasn’t out of the blu — Mikie

Even in this case, I'm still looking after a bigger picture:

• That’s why I keep an eye on what is done, not only on what is said (BTW Putin said he would increase “support” to the military occupied area of Dunbas in late 2020): on one side we have Putin that maintains his military control over occupied Eastern Ukrainian territories, signals escalating intentions early after Biden started his presidency in January 2021 [3] on the other we have Biden freezing by the end of 2021 his own procurement of lethal weapons (despite having declared his willingness to send lethal weapons to Ukraine) and making de-escalating claims (“Biden says the US won't put troops on the ground even if Russia invades Ukraine”), under the pressure of many who wanted him to de-escalate with Putin. So, Biden administration’s real intentions do not necessarily match with their declared intentions. And Biden’s hesitation vs Putin’s determination must be acknowledged.
• Additionally what I care most it's not the beginning of the war as a function of its military deployment per se, but its broader geopolitical significance: in 2021 Putin was already de facto military-occupying and Russifying people in Donetsk and Luhansk regions for 7 years (under Obama’s and Trump’s watch). Given Obama’s soft approach, Trump’s complicity, Biden administration’s hesitation, the success in annexing Crimea, no real deterring counterpart to his military buildup strategy in Donbas, the Russian intel assuring him about the likely success of a blitzkrieg (leaving de facto no time even for the procurement of lethal weapons), the prospect of doing all this without mobilising the Russian population, plus all kinds of pretexts that even the Western public opinion was so passionately ready to acknowledge, one can’t possibly fail to see why Putin must very likely have felt that the times were propitious and US/NATO couldn’t really do anything about it. So finally the US/NATO king was naked, powerless!

[1] My own realist theory of international relations says that the structure of the international system forces countries concerned about their security to compete with each other for power. The ultimate goal of every major state is to maximize its share of world power and eventually dominate the system. In practical terms, this means that the most powerful states seek to establish hegemony in their region of the world, while making sure that no rival great power dominates another region.
To be more specific, the international system has three defining characteristics. First, the main actors are states that operate in anarchy, which simply means that there is no higher authority above them. Second, all great powers have some offensive military capability, which means they have the wherewithal to hurt each other. Third, no state can know the intentions of other states with certainty, especially their future intentions. It is simply impossible, for example, to know what Germany’s or Japan’s intentions will be toward their neighbors in 2025.
In a world where other states might have malign intentions as well as significant offensive capabilities, states tend to fear each other. That fear is compounded by the fact that in an anarchic system there is no night watchman for states to call if trouble comes knocking at their door. Therefore, states recognize that the best way to survive in such a system is to be as powerful as possible relative to potential rivals. The mightier a state is, the less likely it is that another state will attack it. No Americans, for example, worry that Canada or Mexico will attack the United States, because neither of those countries is strong enough to contemplate a fight with Uncle Sam.

https://nationalinterest.org/article/say-goodbye-taiwan-9931


[2]
After all, the United States does not tolerate distant great powers deploying military forces anywhere in the Western Hemisphere, much less on its borders. Imagine the outrage in Washington i! China built an impressive military alliance and tried to include Canada and Mexico in it. Logic aside, Russian leaders have told their Western counterparts on many occasions that they consider
the expansion into Georgia and Ukraine unacceptable, along with any effort to turn those countries against Russia—a message that the 2008 Russian-Georgian war also made crystal clear.

https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-the-Ukraine-Crisis-Is.pdf


[3]
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/15/world/europe/russia-open-skies-treaty-biden.html
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/kremlin-tv-chief-russia-must-annex-east-ukraine/
https://www.swp-berlin.org/en/publication/the-russian-military-escalation-around-ukraines-donbas

I didn’t mean that you were blaming this war only on US/NATO. — neomac

“Only”? I blame Putin for the war. NATO was a reason given for invasion — one that was given for years, clearly and consistently. The conclusion? That he’s an imperialist bent on expanding Russia. That’s wrong. It’s wrong because there’s no evidence supporting it, no matter how often it’s repeated in the media or on this thread. If you think there is evidence, happy to discuss that.

the Russian concerns for NATO enlargement precede Putin and have been taken seriously — neomac

This is an assertion. Where’s the evidence? Pushing for NATO membership (up to and including the 2021 NATO summit), supplying weapons, conducting military drills, providing extensive training, etc., all why Russia was repeatedly calling it a red line (acknowledged by allies, experts, and our CIA as threatening and provocative) — is all that taking it seriously?
— Mikie

“Taking seriously” implies different things for different geopolitical actors depending on their strategy — neomac

Russian concerns about NATO enlargement have been taken seriously. That was your assertion, as seen above.

Therefore, this statement:

for Russia it meant that the West should provide security assurance and of course “pushing for NATO membership (up to and including the 2021 NATO summit), supplying weapons, conducting military drills, providing extensive training, etc.,” are the opposite of security assurance for Putin. — neomac

Is meaningless. Russia was taking Russian concerns seriously, yes — that’s obvious.

For East-European countries (including Ukraine) it meant “pushing for NATO membership (up to and including the 2021 NATO summit), supplying weapons, conducting military drills, providing extensive training, etc.,” because they needed security assurance from the US against the Russian revanchist threat! — neomac

So pushing for NATO membership by East European countries is an example of taking Russian concerns about NATO enlargement seriously?

“We take your concerns seriously by doing exactly what you’re concerned about.”

I’m not sure you’ve thought this through. You’re meandering into incoherence.

The point stands: the US and NATO did not take Russian concerns seriously — as was demonstrated above.

What I find particularly misleading in your claim is your “acknowledged by allies, experts, and our CIA as threatening and provocative” because the understatement is that since allies and some experts were against threatening and provoking Russia by “pushing for NATO membership (up to and including the 2021 NATO summit), supplying weapons, conducting military drills, providing extensive training, etc.,” then those moves were illegitimate. But that’s a biased view precisely because one could still claim that other allies, other experts and other pentagon representatives were “pushing for NATO membership (up to and including the 2021 NATO summit), supplying weapons, conducting military drills, providing extensive training, etc.,” with the intent not to provoke but to deter Russia! — neomac

What was acknowledged was that Russia considered this a threat. I said nothing about legitimacy — we can argue that. Many of these experts may even argue it themselves — for example, that NATO membership and providing weapons is indeed a threat to Russia, but that it’s worth doing anyway. That does in fact seem to be the case for many officials: "We don't care if you feel threatened, no one tells us what to do or who can join our alliance."

Either way, if pushing for NATO membership, supplying weapons and military training, etc., is “taking Russian concerns seriously,” as you asserted, then the assertion is indeed baseless and wrong. If their concerns were taken seriously, these actions wouldn’t have been taken.

"I take your concerns about poking this bear seriously, but I'm going to continue poking the bear." Is this an argument?

That’s why it’s a hopeless exercise to take any side to admit having been the first one to start the escalation. — neomac

What was the Russian threat in 2008, exactly?

Attempting to reduce all of this to “both sides have an opinion, so there’s really no way to tell” is a cop-out and is quite convenient, as it relieves you of having to learn about it.

If state A threatens state B in its proximity or state A invades state B, I could react differently depending on which state is democratic or authoritarian, because I prefer democracy over authoritarian regimes. — neomac

I prefer living in the US over living in Iraq. The US invasion of Iraq was still wrong.

Even if Russia were a democracy, the war is wrong. The US ignoring the Russian concerns and contributing to escalating the crisis is also wrong.

I find the reference to “President’s ‘real’ motive” highly misleading — neomac

So do I. I think to make claims about imperialism as the “real motive” without evidence, instead of looking at actions and statements, is very misleading indeed.

That’s why I keep an eye on what is done, not only on what is said — neomac

Sure — and escalating military training and weapons, turning Ukraine into a de facto NATO member, and doubling down on official NATO membership speaks volumes.

Therefore no, Biden administration’s real intentions do not necessarily match with their declared intentions. — neomac

"Real intentions"? Again, let's stop simply declaring the "real intentions" of the US or Putin, and look at the facts. From the summit communiqué in June 2021 to the Joint Statement in September 2021 to the statements by Blinken in December (after Russia made clear demands about NATO) -- the words were consistent. What about the actions? Well, not only weapons were provided, but extensive military training, including with NATO forces. Did Operation Sea Breeze not match the declared intentions?

We're all against Putin, but there's no sense in ignoring facts in favor of a contrived, unsupported media narrative.

Given Obama’s soft approach, Trump’s complicity, Biden administration’s hesitation — neomac

10 thousand trained troops a year (Obama), Trump supplying "defensive weapons," and Biden's long-held and continued hawkishness toward Russia (including what I've already gone over) -- hardly what you describe.

So finally the US/NATO king was naked, powerless! — neomac

Except that this is the exact opposite of the truth -- and Russia knew it. NATO's involvement was getting more and more serious, which is why they wrote letters to both NATO and the US demanding "1) Ukraine would not join NATO, 2) no offensive weapons would be stationed near Russia’s borders, and 3) NATO troops and equipment moved into eastern Europe since 1997 would be moved back to western Europe." This was in December of 2021. Blinken's response: "There is no change, there will be no change."

Also in December, Putin said: “what they are doing, or trying or planning to do in Ukraine, is not happening thousands of kilometers away from our national border. It is on the doorstep of our house. They must understand that we simply have nowhere further to retreat to. Do they really think we do not see these threats? Or do they think that we will just stand idly watching threats to Russia emerge?”

Based on the statements and actions by the US and NATO, it's quite clear they weren't "naked and powerless," nor did Russia see it that way.

So this is another baseless assertion.

Bondarev is a Russian diplomat that was assigned to the UN. He resigned the position May 23, 2022 due to the war. His resignation letter:

Statement

My name is Boris Bondarev, in the MFA of Russia since 2002, since 2019 until now – Counsellor of the Russian Mission to the UN Office at Geneva.

For twenty years of my diplomatic career I have seen different turns of our foreign policy, but never have I been so ashamed of my country as on February 24 of this year. The aggressive war unleashed by Putin against Ukraine, and in fact against the entire Western world, is not only a crime against the Ukrainian people, but also, perhaps, the most serious crime against the people of Russia, with a bold letter Z crossing out all hopes and prospects for a prosperous free society in our country.

Those who conceived this war want only one thing – to remain in power forever, live in pompous tasteless palaces, sail on yachts comparable in tonnage and cost to the entire Russian Navy, enjoying unlimited power and complete impunity. To achieve that they are willing to sacrifice as many lives as it takes. Thousands of Russians and Ukrainians have already died just for this.

I regret to admit that over all these twenty years the level of lies and unprofessionalism in the work of the Foreign Ministry has been increasing all the time. However, in most recent years, this has become simply catastrophic. Instead of unbiased information, impartial analysis and sober forecasting, there are propaganda cliches in the spirit of Soviet newspapers of the 1930s. A system has been built that deceives itself.

Minister Lavrov is a good illustration of the degradation of this system. In 18 years, he went from a professional and educated intellectual, whom many colleagues held in such high esteem, to a person who constantly broadcasts conflicting statements and threatens the world (that is, Russia too) with nuclear weapons!

Today, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not about diplomacy. It is all about warmongering, lies and hatred. It serves interests of few, the very few people thus contributing to further isolation and degradation of my country. Russia no longer has allies, and there is no one to blame but its reckless and ill-conceived policy.

I studied to be a diplomat and have been a diplomat for twenty years. The Ministry has become my home and family. But I simply cannot any longer share in this bloody, witless and absolutely needless ignominy. — Boris Bondarev

You have to understand that, if he [Putin] loses the war, it will be the end for him, he will have to explain to his elites and his population why it is so and he may find some problems in explaining this. — Boris Bondarev

• US division ready to enter Ukraine in case of attack on NATO — TV (TASS; Oct 22, 2022)

• 1st Time In 80 Years, US Army Deploys ‘Screaming Eagles’ 101st Airborne Division Just Miles Away From Ukraine (The EurAsian Times; Oct 23, 2022)

• False flag? Russia says Ukraine plans to detonate a ‘dirty bomb’ (Al Jazeera; Oct 23, 2022)

As suggests, Putin isn't exactly approachable here. Peskov? Lavrov? Medvedev? How might the diplomats get on with it?

If Putin is actually going down the nuclear path, then Moscow will get all eyes-on, attention. I don't imagine they think that'd be a good move for Russia, or anyone at all. Anyone know specs of the Russian dirty / tactical nuclear bombs? (radius, time until area is safe, materials, yield, emp, delivery systems)

(my emphasis)

what's ultimately a stupid proxy war — Mikie

Right. The aid to the Ukrainians makes the providers proxied elements. Though, I don't think the instigator meant to (ultimately) attack them instead (in this war anyway). Or maybe someone disagrees with this? Seems Iran has joined in, too (drones, personnel). Regardless, evidence suggests Putin wants to ultimately convert (all or part of) Ukraine to Russian oblasts; that part at least isn't proxy.

Picture if China was taking the same actions in Canada or Mexico, despite US warnings. Would we say they were taking those warnings seriously? After all, it could be argued, China didn’t annex Canada or incorporate it into a defensive alliance — it was only talking about it.

How would that scenario play out? Would we therefore EXCUSE the US for invading Canada? Of course not. But it shouldn’t come as a shock. Nor should we invent stories about how the US President’s “real” motive is to conquer all of the Western Hemisphere. — Mikie

Note that in this scenario, the US would annex large parts of Canada, just as Putin is doing in Ukraine. Therefore, it would be a land grab, a manifestation of imperialism

Your endless NATO caca arguments fail to account for the annexion of Crimea, Dombass and Kherson. This is the proof of imperial ambitions, which you have conveniently decided to ignore because it undermines your narrative...

This is the proof of imperial ambitions, which you have conveniently decided to ignore because it undermines your narrative... — Olivier5

This is not "proof" of Imperial ambitions, as @Mikie describes above.

What you point to can also be explained by: NATO (an anti-Russian alliance) gets closer to Russia, who views an anti-Russian alliance as a threat, threat in a general sense and also specific threat to their naval base in Crimea, and when NATO starts to get too close, too threatening Russia preemptively acts to secure it's "national interest" (the same concept the US keeps going on about for decades to justify all of it's interventions around the world).

And this expanding towards Russia (that geopolitical experts that managed the end of the cold war, say will invariably lead to a war in Ukraine) is then mixed in with 8 years of Ukraine shelling ethnic-Russians in the Donbas.

So the idea that this war was somehow just completely unprovoked by US, NATO and Ukraine, is simply absurd.

Of course, provocation doesn't determine moral justification, but it is incompatible with the "pure imperialism" or "crazy" or whatever narrative imparted to Russia.

Why getting the narrative plausibly correct is important, is that some basic sense of reality is required to make good decisions; in this case reach a diplomatic resolution to the war.

For, either

1. NATO goes to war with Russia to implement by force the West's moral judgements, which maximises the risk of nuclear war, or
2. Ukraine imposes its will on Russia by force
3. Russia imposes its will on Ukraine by force
4. The war goes on forever

The justification for provoking Russia for 8 years by shelling the Donbas and doing nothing about Nazi's the West's own media would go and report on all the time, and the fanatical total war fighting including handing out small arms to civilians (which only get them killed) was number 1, that US / NATO would intervene with a no-fly zone. Zelensky and co. and a good part of the whole of social media seemed to genuinely believe that would happen. And now that Russia seems to be turning the tide, suddenly the 101'st US airborn is being talked up as doing exercises on Ukraine's border and may need to intervene (according to Patreus) ... why would there be this talk if option 2 was feasible?

And when it comes to option 2, in thousands of comments (over 7000 I believe) in this conversation, there has never been a single remotely plausible proposal of how Ukraine can "win" with pure military means.

Indeed, for months Ukrainian partisans were justifying the fighting because it would increase Ukraine's negotiating position ... and that was even Ukraine and Zelensky's justification from time to time, but where was the peace proposal to go along with that idea? Russia entirely withdraw from Ukraine, even Crimea!!

When it comes to 3, Russia does have the means to simply win. So if options 1 and 2 aren't happening, and 4 is unlikely, then the current Western strategy likely result is simply option 3.

However, how is Russia winning a good way to fight Russian Imperialism?

As for option 4. This might be "bad for Russia", for sure, but how is it good for Ukraine?

Although I have my doubts option 4 can be maintained forever, certainly war can be dragged on a maximum amount of time by bankrolling and arming Ukraine as much as possible, even if they are losing. But how's that good for Ukrainians anyways? Considering the lives and economic destruction it entails.

What's the alternative to these military resolutions?

Negotiated peace.

But if you want a negotiated peace, then Russia is going to get a lot of what it wants, easy to yell as a Westerner safe in their living room "Boohoohooo! Russia need to be punished for their Imperialism!" ... but how many Ukrainian lives are worth it to make that point? How many Ukrainian lives are worth it to make that point and Ukraine still lose the war?

Which is the core of my position: if NATO wants to punish Russia for its actions, it should spent NATO lives to do it. If we won't, then it's not our business and Ukraine can fight if it wants to with its own means, and if it can't win then it should sue for as good a peace as it can.

For, the idea there's some moral imperative to send arms is not only absurd, but also hypocritical.

If it's a moral imperative then we should be sending all the arms! Are we? No.

Even worse, NATO opens and lowers the arms and training and funding taps as it suits them, and won't hesitate to shut things down if it becomes politically expedient (just throw some shade on Ukraine, suddenly things aren't so clear, time to stop sending money into a money pit in Ukraine and spend it domestically, duty to own citizens and Ukraine state has duty to theirs and all that).

So, it's not a coherent moral position to begin with and hypocritical from start to finish.

Now, we could debate spending NATO lives to "show Russia" ... but we aren't because everyone knows no one in NATO gives a fuck about Ukraine beyond an expedient tool for US policy.

Additionally, the "Russian Imperialism" land grabbing left and right, makes zero coherent sense with the Russian military incompetence narrative, which is even less sensical than the "we support Ukraine by not actually supporting Ukraine but just sending weapons", with a nice insane "we can't negotiate as it's not our war, and Zelensky won't negotiate with Russia, as he shouldn't!, but will take every inch of territory back ... but also it's Putin that refuses to negotiate!"

Ok, the argument is the Ukrainians can take care of business themselves if we just send enough weapons.

But is that happening?

We've been told since September Russian lines are collapsing ... yet they're still there. We've been told since the start of the war that Russian economy and society will disintegrate and therefore no actual battle plan is required beyond sending more people to die.

Which is the heart of the matter. Whatever intentions you place on Putin, the question is what to do about it. Wars happen. Most wars are resolved by some diplomatic resolution.

So what did the West get wrong with Russia? I think our former prime minister describes it well: — ssu

This analysis by the former Finnish PM is just so amazingly shallow and dumb.

For example, he says he was right about Finland joining NATO and his "mistake" was not pushing for that hard enough while in office.

... But is Finland under attack? Would Finland joining NATO have stopped the Ukraine war somehow?

Did he advocate Ukraine joining NATO at the time ... or even now?

Moreover, he was literally physically there in Georgia negotiating with the Russians ... but fails to mention Russia invading only after NATO declared Georgia and Ukraine would be joining NATO, eventually.

He also says the "Doves were wrong" about economic integration, but fails to mention the 2022 war in Ukraine only happening after Nord Stream 2 was not licensed.

Maybe if that economic integration project went ahead, and Germany and the EU pretended it would for 10 years (why else would Russia and a bunch of Western contractors build it?), the war would have been avoided.

Maybe the doves were right, but the hawks under Biden, once in power, wanted this war and ended the doves peace-and-cooperation strategy to avoid war ... and what do we get? A war.

Hawks then run around, like this arrogant piece of Finnish shit, saying they were right?

But what were their Hawkish policies that would have avoided war? Nukes in Ukraine?

If you yell after the fact "haha I was right about the war happening" you need to actually point to what your alternative plan would have been that would have avoided the war. All the Finnish PM can point to is Finland could have joined NATO ... but would that have affected Russia attacking Ukraine.

Of course, if he made the logical link of Hawks were right and therefore NATO should have let Ukraine join, he'd have to square that with Ukraine wanting to join, requesting to join, begging to join, putting it in their constitution (whereas Finland was quite content not being in NATO and never made any request), but NATO not letting Ukraine in the club. Well, if it's obvious that NATO wouldn't have let Ukraine in any time before 2022 nor today ... nor ever, what's the hawk's great idea that would have avoided war?

Arm Ukraine? Even Blinken pointed out that arming Ukraine isn't a good plan as whatever capacity is built up in Ukraine, Russia will just double it, or quadruple it (and, the sub-text, feel threatened and therefore more likely to attack). Arming Ukraine and teasing "NATO partnership and NATO one day" is the primrose path to the destruction of Ukraine, as Mearsheimer puts it. Made them feel big and tough and therefore no need to negotiate in a level headed and compromising way with Russia.

What was the hawkish alternative plan to this exact scenario?

The Finnish PM does not even address any of the key facts or what hawks would have done differently to avoid war in Ukraine.

He's also just delusional about who's he's even criticising. The Dove's position he lambasts is not that Russia is not a military threat and therefore we had no fear of war all these years.

Rather, the Dove's position is precisely because Russia is a military threat and we should fear war, therefore we should be ever vigilant and diligent in diplomatic and economic cooperation arrangements that maintain the peace.

Knee jerk total sanctions was the hawks wet dream, but what did that accomplish? Did Russia collapse economically or was simply the costs of total war preemptively removed so that there is far less incentive to keep or return to peace?

Indeed, US policy hawks called central bank sanctions their "nuclear option" for decades, how they could effectively destroy Russia ... Russia then spends a decade preparing for this threat US policy hawks literally can't stop talking about.

Did the dove's plan really fail?

Or did the hawks finally get to do their insane plans and this is the result.

The international diplomatic "dove" position is not based on an underestimation of the horrors of war.

The attitude is more that of Hector in the movie Troy:

Hector: Tell me little brother, have you ever killed a man?

US policy hawks: No

Hector: Ever seen a man die in combat?

US policy hawks: No

Hector: I've killed men and I've heard them dying and I've watched them dying and there's nothing glorious about it.

That he’s an imperialist bent on expanding Russia. That’s wrong. It’s wrong because there’s no evidence supporting it, no matter how often it’s repeated in the media or on this thread. If you think there is evidence, happy to discuss that. — Mikie

I’m responding only for my arguments. If you want to talk about “imperialism”, you better clarify what you mean by it in a way that is clear what you would take as an evidence for the concept to apply, because otherwise we are just quibbling over a terminological issue. See here: “Imperialism is the state policy, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion, especially by direct territorial acquisition or by gaining political and economic control of other areas,[2][3] often through employing hard power (economic and military power), but also soft power (cultural and diplomatic power).” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism)
So America is called “imperialist” (https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/10/05/putin-speech-ukraine-annexation-western-imperialism/) even if they didn’t annex territories while Russia under Putin made 3 annexations (Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk) and subtracted territories to Georgia (Abkhazia and South Ossetia). Besides Putin’s mission to protect persecuted Russian minorities is a popular pretext common in those who have imperialistic ambitions (https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-ethnic-russification-baltics-kazakhstan-soviet/25328281.html).

So pushing for NATO membership by East European countries is an example of taking Russian concerns about NATO enlargement seriously?

“We take your concerns seriously by doing exactly what you’re concerned about.”

I’m not sure you’ve thought this through. You’re meandering into incoherence.

The point stands: the US and NATO did not take Russian concerns seriously — as was demonstrated above[/]. — Mikie

That’s why you are blaming also US/NATO for this war, right?

Either way, if pushing for NATO membership, supplying weapons and military training, etc., is “taking Russian concerns seriously,” as you asserted, then the assertion is indeed baseless and wrong. If their concerns were taken seriously, these actions wouldn’t have been taken. — Mikie

Taking a threat seriously means that one should not ignore the threat, but it doesn’t imply a specific course of action in response to that threat. If a mafia mobster goes to some business reclaiming his "pizzo", and the business owner manages to call the police to rescue himself instead of paying the mobster that doesn’t mean that the business owner didn’t take the threat seriously, on the contrary he did, that’s why he called the police. The points I was making with my comment were: first, we shouldn’t cling on the conflation between threat and expected response when we talk about “Taking Russian threat seriously” which has no other use than serving Putin’s narrative and therefore it prevents us from seeing US/NATO response as a deterring strategy (indeed, deterrence makes perfect sense against perceived serious threats!). Besides if NATO/US didn’t take Putin seriously, then also Putin didn’t take seriously “NATO membership, supplying weapons and military training, etc.” because if he did, he would have felt deterred.
Secondly, the Western response is mired in unresolved tensions between hardliners and softliners (since Obama, Westerners could have sent lethal weapons to Ukraine in greater stock much earlier than they did), while Putin response doesn’t suffer from comparable obstacles. And this observation is pertinent and non-negligible in a geopolitical perspective.

I prefer living in the US over living in Iraq. The US invasion of Iraq was still wrong.

Even if Russia were a democracy, the war is wrong. The US ignoring the Russian concerns and contributing to escalating the crisis is also wrong. — Mikie

So what? I’m more interested in testing the rationality of our expectations not in what we find desirable or moral. If all you have to offer is a list of scores based on your moral compass or desiderata, you are not intellectually challenging to me.

What was the Russian threat in 2008, exactly?

Attempting to reduce all of this to “both sides have an opinion, so there’s really no way to tell” is a cop-out and is quite convenient, as it relieves you of having to learn about it. — Mikie

I answered that already. In geopolitics, there are not only imminent military threats but also long term strategic threats [1]: nationalist revanchism was the most serious threat that Europe could think of after 2 WWs, and the collapse of the Soviet Union. That’s why Russia and Putin were under NATO’s radar. By the end of 2008 Putin was already on the path of centralising power (e.g. by fighting oligarchs since hist first presidency term) while signalling his geopolitical ambitions in his war against Chechnya and Georgia. This was already enough to alarm the West and the ex-soviet union countries (including Ukrainians who have a long history of nationalist tensions with Russia). That’s why NATO enlargement was welcomed by ex-Soviet republics and not the result of military occupation and annexation by NATO, you know.
Additionally your myopic demands for evidence fails to take into account the initial assumption of my geopolitical reasoning: “You candidly admit that Putin’s perception of the threat was honestly felt (even if, ex hypothesis, it’s not justified) , but that’s pointless to the extent that all geopolitical agents (not only Russia) as geopolitical agent reason strategically. And strategic reasoning comprises threat perception, signalling and management , so if one must acknowledge that Putin/Russia felt threatened by US/NATO (even if, ex hypothesis, it’s unjustified), then one must acknowledge that also US/NATO/Ukraine can feel threatened by Putin/Russia (even if, ex hypothesis, it’s unjustified).”. So US/NATO felt Putin and the rising of Russian revanchism honestly threatening, even if, ex hypothesis, it wasn’t justified. Period.

"Real intentions"? Again, let's stop simply declaring the "real intentions" of the US or Putin, and look at the facts. From the summit communiqué in June 2021 to the Joint Statement in September 2021 to the statements by Blinken in December (after Russia made clear demands about NATO) -- the words were consistent. What about the actions? Well, not only weapons were provided, but extensive military training, including with NATO forces. — Mikie

You are missing the fact that Biden froze the procurement of lethal weapons by the end of 2021 (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/appeals-ukraine-biden-admin-holds-back-additional-military-aid-kyiv-di-rcna8421) which were a more serious threat for Putin’s war machine than military training, defensive weapons and NATO promises. And again: NATO/US military support to Ukraine was meant as a deterrent (however weak), not as a buildup for a Russian invasion (here is another proof of concept: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/06/us/ukraine-war-missile.html).

10 thousand trained troops a year (Obama), Trump supplying "defensive weapons," and Biden's long-held and continued hawkishness toward Russia (including what I've already gone over) -- hardly what you describe. — Mikie

Again you are forgetting the issue of the lethal weapons. Not training, not NATO expansion, not defensive weapons, not the hawkish claims were the serious threat, otherwise Putin would have started his special operation much earlier. The serious military threat was the offensive weapon system provided to the Ukrainians against Putin’s expansionist ambitions.

Also in December, Putin said: “what they are doing, or trying or planning to do in Ukraine, is not happening thousands of kilometers away from our national border. It is on the doorstep of our house. They must understand that we simply have nowhere further to retreat to. Do they really think we do not see these threats? Or do they think that we will just stand idly watching threats to Russia emerge?” — Mikie

Retreat from what? Did Putin have evidence that Ukraine or NATO wanted to invade Russia? Or are we always talking about perceived strategic threats?
You keep presenting facts according to the Russian perspective but you didn’t explain yet why the West should act according to Putin’s way of framing the issue and related demands (NATO membership, no military training, no weapons for Ukraine) while letting Ukraine fall prey to Russia. How is that right? If Russia did something wrong in invading Ukraine according to your moral compass, what do you think it’s sensible to do about it? Besides you even claimed “So you don't believe Putin. Understood. I don't blame anyone for that. I don't blame anyone for not believing American presidents when they say things either. I think we should be very skeptical”, so what’s the point of objecting that the West didn’t take Putin’s demands the way he expected ?

Based on the statements and actions by the US and NATO, it's quite clear they weren't "naked and powerless," nor did Russia see it that way.

So this is another baseless assertion. — Mikie

If Putin must be treated as a rational agent, then Putin couldn’t possibly start a military confrontation with a non-aggressive competitor against which, ex-hypothesis, he believed having no chance or little chance of winning. If Putin is a rational agent, we must assume he acted according to some rational expectations appropriate for those circumstances: namely, he believed to have a serious chance to get what he wanted and NATO/US couldn’t really deter him, so that he could plausibly claim to have won a war against the West, because that’s how his propaganda keeps framing the war. And even now that the military performance of Russia proved to be so poor on the battle field, Russia keeps escalating, mobilising people, threatening to go nuclear and celebrating his trophies (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63052207). What matters here, it’s not if he “really” wins but if his victory claims based on his military achievements sound convincing enough to destabilise the cohesion of the Western alliance, draw on his side resources and commitments from his anti-Western valuable allies and therefore inflict a big geopolitical blow on Western hegemony.

So here we stand:

• You are blaming also US/NATO for this war in Ukraine
• You do not ground your judgement based on geopolitical strategic concerns, only on your cute moral compass (honesty, impartiality, peace&lovefulness)

[1]
And one wants to assess strategic threats, then one has to reason like Mearsheimer's here:
The only way to predict how a rising China is likely to behave toward its neighbors as well as the United States is with a theory of great-power politics. The main reason for relying on theory is that we have no facts about the future, because it has not happened yet. Thomas Hobbes put the point well: “The present only has a being in nature; things past have a being in the memory only; but things to come have no being at all.” Thus, we have no choice but to rely on theories to determine what is likely to transpire in world politics.
https://nationalinterest.org/article/say-goodbye-taiwan-9931

it is incompatible with the "pure imperialism" or "crazy" or whatever narrative imparted to Russia. — boethius

It is not incompatible with imperialism. In fact prehemmptively invading a neighbor because said neighbor is cozying up with rivals is precisely what a militaristic, imperialist regime would do.

It is not incompatible with imperialism. — Olivier5

Russian military incompetence is completely incompatible with the notion that Russian imperialism is something we should worry about. Ukraine will win on the battlefield, Russia for sure could successfully attack more countries and more certainly not NATO, and that's that.

Otherwise, what you're saying is that the mere imperialism requires only the mere intention to build empire and no actual means and that anyone who's the target of someone intention for empire building should be given tens of billions of Euro's of arms and economic support. For instance, if I personally have the intention to expand my empire to the adjacent homes in the area, they should all get tens billions of Euros of arms and assistance, because I do intend to expand my empire. Obviously, that argument makes no sense as I have no actual means to subjugate my neighbourhood into a system of vassal tribute.

You can't have it both ways:

1. Arms, intelligence and financial support to Ukraine is justified despite no discernible pathway to victory because Russian forces, despite being superior in strength in nearly every metric, is incompetent and they'll just randomly fall apart one day.

2. Arms, intelligence and financial support to Ukraine is justified as Russia is on a imperial expansion mission far beyond the borders of Ukraine and therefore we want to damage Russia's army regardless of the Ukrainian lives spent and even if Ukraine can't actually win because far from being incompetent, Russia is executing the war in a ruthless efficient way: nearly surround Kiev to shell to the ground Ukraine war producing industry and also fix forces while the south is occupied (nearly 20% of Ukraine and something the Russians can feasibly hold onto with limited force), then attrit the Ukrainians all summer in a giant cauldron in the South using only professional forces and the Donbas malitias and loads of artillery, bait the Ukrainians into disastrous offensives that exhaust their reserves, followed by a limited mobilisation and destruction of the Ukrainian power grid to "get the job done" once economic and political blow-back affects start hitting the West (like 3 UK PM's in 2 months, or whatever it is, move to the far right in Italy, massive protests in various EU countries). Look at these ruthless Imperialists!!! Quick, quick, throw some more Ukrainian bodies to slow down the Russian war machine.

More importantly, regardless of the argument, what would follow from a legitimate belief Russian Imperialism was a problem morally required to deal with, would be the conclusion that NATO soldiers go and standup to this Imperialism.

Saying something is a problem for me ... but not enough that I take any real personal risk to deal with it, is the same as saying it's not a problem for me, rather just an opportunity for others to suffer a cost for my benefit if they're gullible enough to believe my arguments but not look at my actions.

For example, nukes in Cuba was really believed by the US administration to be a problem morally required to deal with.

So, what did they do?

They put their own sailors in harms way and made the ultimatum to the Soviets that if they wanted to keep their nukes in Cuba, then it would be war.

Same could be done in Ukraine any day since 2008, or even before.

It's not done. Why? Because "Ukraine sovereignty" is not legitimately believed to be a goal with any real moral merit or commitment, rather a the Ukrainians belief and willingness to fight a losing battle, is a US opportunity.

Now, even if I believed Russia was some legitimate threat to Finland and the rest of the EU if Ukraine fell! I would still oppose bleeding the Russians with Ukrainian lives knowing there is no benefit to Ukraine for doing so over a negotiate settlement, requiring compromise, yes, but compromise is better than fighting for someone else's war game. Especially when there's no respawn ... and your enemy is in fact not a noob, despite the people wanting you to fight irrationally making that assurance.

They put their own sailors in harms way and made the ultimatum to the Soviets that if they wanted to keep their nukes in Cuba, then it would be war. — boethius

The US didn't annex parts of Cuba nor obtained Cuban neutrality/Cuban demilitarization/regime change. And US reaction was against an actual nuclear threat.

The US didn't annex parts of Cuba nor obtained Cuban neutrality/Cuban demilitarization/regime change. And US reaction was against an actual nuclear threat. — neomac

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion#U.S._Government_personnel

and?

101st Airborne Deployed to Ukraine’s Border ‘Ready To Fight Tonight’

https://news.antiwar.com/2022/10/23/101st-airborn-deployed-to-ukraines-border-ready-to-fight-tonight/

They attempted all the things you named.